tv [untitled] September 26, 2011 1:00am-1:30am PDT
grade. he planning code requires a rear yard. it will be entirely within the rear yard. >> is there any public comment on this item? the matter is yours. commissioner garcia: it's not a reasonable expectation of the adversarial nature of the project sponsor, and it would be odd that i would have no dissent to an address of the building that i was renting out to the people having the project.
perhaps they didn't get it. it will be blind faith. we heard from mr. sanchez, there is no scenario that can cause anyone to believe this is defective. other than this particular case, there is lack of proper notice. there hasn't been anything demonstrated that shows that notice wasn't sent out as it should have been, and therefore, her comments with my fellow commissioners, we do not intend to favor granting jurisdiction.
>> my thoughts are similar to vice-president garcia. having said this, this is a significant project. you can drive anywhere near that street and not realize a big project is going on. there are several processes involved with this project. i think the appellants were on notice several times about the extent of this project, the would-be inclined to deny jurisdiction. commissioner fung: i also do not see any due process issues related to the jurisdiction request.
>> i don't disagree with what has been said. commissioner fung: move to deny the jurisdiction request. >> call the roll, please. >> on that motion from commissioner fung to deny both jurisdiction requests. on that motion to deny both. president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. presidentcommissioner peterson:. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the vote is 5-0. commissioner garcpresident goh:l the next item, item 6a, b, c, and item 7 will not be heard this evening.
item 5 is appeal for golden gate valley neighborhood association. with planning department approval, subject properties protesting the issuance on april 4, 2011 to capital investment llc. for exterior patio and 312 notification for new pati. o. this item was hurt and was continued for further consideration today to allow time for the parties to attempt a settlement regarding noise mitigation measures. we will start with the permit holder. three minutes.
>> hello, agian. ain. i am the operating manager of the brickyard. if you ask that we come to a fair compromise that comes for both sides. unfortunately, we are unable to come to an agreement and i hope you can help us come to a final resolution. i would like to share the landscape of the commercial district. there are numerous restaurants that have facades fully open to the outside and have residences in close proximity.
this is the crab shack, seating for about 24 people outside. this is beetle-nut. a facade that fully opens with bar area at the front. french doors fully open, sidewalk seating. this is the block next to us. this one is directly adjacent to us. this is bayside for 15 years prior. there are two windows in the front that open, and these are representative of about 15 square feet of open space. since the last hearing, we have had productive dialogue with the
appellants. i introduced additional compromises with hopes that one of the two options would be acceptable by the appellant. the first option was using the existing bifold door system and keeping one open. 27 square feet or half of what have. -- bayside used to have. the second was a structural modification that removes the door system and built a wall with two windows. this would be 29 square feet of open space, just over half. this does address the structural modification changes requested by the appellant. [chime] as can be expected, hire third- party firms may present
conflicting viewpoints. what is not conflicting is that the only government agency in place to measure noise has concluded that with three petals open, there is no noise ordinance violations. this would reduce the amount of open space by an additional 66%. we view both of these as being more than fair compromises. is that all of it? ok, sorry. president goh: thank you. from the uphappellant now. >> i'm with the golden gate valley neighborhood association. we did not want to be in this position to ask you to make this decision. we hope to work this out, but
they are not willing to make meaningful modifications that would keep the noise inside their business and out of our homes. as he insists on having an open front, either an open door or a door-window combination that would open up more space, projecting the noise directly into our homes. i believe the evidence supports this. most of the noise is generated in the bar area directly adjacent to the door and window combination. they already show the high levels of noise and generated that have occupancy with no sporting events. this place holds 150 people. you have heard the recordings,
we're not going to repeat that. we have tried to compromise, but as neighbors, we believe a second the story deck 70 feet from our veterans would be very disturbing. and it will present issues with crowds and noise. we have tried to ask that they simply keep the bar noise within their building. that is all we want. i tried to reach a solution, but they are not interested in anything. we can talk about visible levels and square footage, but noises noise. it was mentioned -- ha we are talking about 12 seats on an occupancy over 150.
none of the places darren mentioned have residences across from them. commissioner garcia, i think it was you that talked about the need to balance 12 seats with the damage done to neighbors. we think this project would clearly do harm to the neighbors. one open-door would do a lot of harm. this recording action, this is one open door. this is from my bedroom window. [chime] we're just asking for your help. thank you.
>> we would like the inspector from the entertainment commission, he has been requested to appear by one of our commissioners. >> good evening, commissioners. i am basically here to answer any questions you might have on our reports. >> who requested -- commissioner garcia: i did. a little background. to me, it seems for me the issue got down to whether or not the methodology of the entertainment commission was adequate. we got a couple reports that disagree with one another as to what the base was for ambient noise. this operation was exceeding
what is legal decibels above ambient. i don't know if you had an opportunity to read the different reports. >> neither report has been supplied to my department. >> in one case it was mentioned that you have two different visitations. on one, there was no mention on what the base and the engine noise was. and it was not a case that you could find a violation? >> we did not do ambient at that time, we did a site visit. we take readings of the area, the sound directly related to the establishment. generally, depending on the layout of the area, the layout of the business, we take
readings from multiple angles to see how far it is traveling. this is the methodology we use across the city from everything for larger venues like at&t park where we go out as far back as the castro to take neighborhood readings. our guidance is taking those measurements, it is very straightforward and governed by the we take readings on the scaf sound. recently, that ordinance is changed slightly. we can also take readings on the scale that is better for low frequency. we have to make sure that our
equipment is in't near glass or walls that can have sound reflecting back at us. and that we get an accurate reading of sound. these visits were reports that you're talking about, i went on site to take readings from across the street and i have the reports in front of me. we checked to see what kind of sound was traveling from the location to us. commissioner garcia: this was prompted by requests from the planning department because the permit was under consideration, or are these business -- are these taken as a normal course of business or because of a complaint? >> how they were taken by request from the planning department. technically, it is not under our jurisdiction because they don't
do any form of entertainment. commissioner garcia: who would be responsible for making sure they are not in violation of the ordinance? the police department? >> that is right, but we are requested oftentimes by the police department. commissioner garcia: was the bar at half capacity? be you remember? >> i can't comment on whether it was half, quarter, were full. we just took readings. we don't do head counts when we do that. commissioner garcia: i read your report, but i can't remember. were they close to the thre threshold of being in violation? >> if i remember correctly, what you're looking at is generally 8
dba above ambient. readings here, the noise inside, this is report from 521 2011 at 10:31 p.m. that would be a friday or saturday. a weekend. we predominantly work weekend nights. generally weak days, we work interior office and weekends we work nights. we have readings inside of between 85 and 86 dba. our sound readings, let's see. at 1781 union street, patio doors closed, sound readings between 566 and 69 dba. as far as were they close?
i would say with frequency, that level of noise, and even some of the locations across the street, i would say that they are probably within 5-8 dba of over that limit. >> the dba scale is not linear, it's logarithmic. i would ask you to weigh an on- tha a hypothet. it is terrible to do this to you, but what do you think the effects of that kind of operation, one open door, the open space would have to be 27 square feet. do you think that is going to -- >> a lot of it depends on the
open door size. it is not much of a concern to me. i have worked in many cases where i had sound from a 6 inch- blasting because of sheer volume and power of the equipment behind it. lasting enough sound that it will vibrate a drink across the table. and i have also seen that a space as big as this room open and can be 250 feet from that and you can't hear it at all. as far as the open space, it is a consideration, cut more to the point is power and a source of noise, meaning how powerful and how much sheer wattage or sound will make the biggest impact. from one of the items included in one of my reports, when they were given some of their
conditions as far as what they were doing operationally, keeping all of the doors closed, they will shut the patio down at 10:00 p.m., we assume that means all the doors would be closed at 10:00 p.m.. they were talking about a retractable canvassed to help contain sound. again, without hard data in front of me as far as getting a room filled with people that are being allowed as they possibly can, myself and any acoustical engineer, we will all just a guess. will there the impact of the neighborhood? absolutely. will it be monstrous? my guess would probably be not. let's be honest, you're going to be able to hear them. will it make the surrounding residents unlivable?
unless i am in those residences and ticking sound readings, i am purely guessing. chances are, probably not. but the sound can be very interpretive. what is allowed to you may not be allowed to you. commissioner garcia: we hope that san francisco has enough of a sense that people will be making noise. at any rate, other commissioners may have questions. >> another thing that is important to remember, this is something we have to remind the neighbors, it is important to remember that the windows of the residentce have to be closed. if someone is complaining about a bar having a live mariachi band every night. if we go to do what we call 'confirm' that sound
complaint, if the windows are open, once you close them, you can no longer hear the sound, that complaint is no longer valid. if your windows are open or closed, the resident is in control of that sound measure. that is an important fact to remember. >> what is that code section? >> 4900. mpc. 1060 and 1070. police code. municipal police code. the conditions for our permits are the good neighbor policy, a boiler plate set for any permit that is passed through our commission. with that, we are very well aware of the peaceful enjoyment of a resident's home.
they are guaranteed which by law. we protect that as much as we can and as thoroughly as we can. >> i have a question about the measuring used. '85-'86 inside. but now you're able to use the c-weighted scale. with that be resulted in a higher with -- with that result in a higher number? >> probably not. they are the basic frequency, it is terrible for reading the base frequency. you can stand next to a very powerful bass speaker and it will tell you which is why it is all -- it is much more accurate for low frequencies. in this particular situation where you're dealing with a television set or noise of
people talking, that range of frequency would generally be higher. base would not be an issue, so we would not bring basic into it. >> are you able to hear, without your equipment, and have the sense of what the dba is? i don't know what your management -- the measurement is. >> one of the things that we teach police officers his distance. if you don't have monitoring equipment, the only way to measure it down and dirty is sheer distance. the police code talks about being able to hear a sound from 100-200 feet from property line. if you can hear sound across the street, amplified sound.
how we work with the noise from people and more from amplified sound. there is no real law written about people malaise. i can go into the municipal police code and is very clear, it is very articulate hot amplified sound, sound coming from amplification. as for a sound coming from a bunch of people talking, there is no law saying that it is too loud. >> and you have heard a recording of the appellant played for us from her apartment. >> again, to me, having been in this position, that recording -- and this is no offense to them, i can't give the recording any way.
the window is open or closed, she is standing out in front, is she standing inside? his is actually the bar in question? this is something we deal with constantly from complaint neighbors that send us a video or audio tapes. i have to go with the lines of court. that particular recording would not be admissible in court as active evidence. >> maybe that is what the president is asking, but if you heard that and assume for the sake of argument that the sound was emanating from the property in question, and other assumptions can be put into place. a level higher than the property in question, with the window in question, with the window open, when one door open.